Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J : p
William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin L.
Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship. The
complainant alleges:
That on December 17, 1998, William S. Uy with deceit and evident intent
to defraud undersigned, still accepted the amount of P340,000.00, from Atty.
Fermin L. Gonzales, P300,000.00, in PNB Check No. 0000606, and P40,000.00,
in cash, as full payment of the redemption of TCT No. 33122 . . . knowing fully
well that at that time the said TCT cannot be redeemed anymore because the
same was already transferred in the name of his children;
With the execution of the letter-complaint, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and
grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent
unceremoniously turned against him just because he refused to grant respondent's
request for additional compensation. Respondent's act tarnished his reputation and
social standing. 3
In compliance with this Court's Resolution dated July 31, 2000, 4 respondent filed his
Comment narrating his version, as follows:
On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title
ready for signing and notarization. On April 14, 1999, he went to complainant's office
informing him that the petition is ready for filing and needs funds for expenses. Complainant
who was with a client asked him to wait at the anteroom where he waited for almost two
hours until he found out that complainant had already left without leaving any instructions
nor funds for the filing of the petition. Complainant's conduct infuriated him which prompted
him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he
prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition.
In a Resolution dated October 18, 2000, the Court referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 6
On April 29, 2003, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala received a letter from one Atty.
Augusto M. Macam dated April 24, 2003, stating that his client, William S. Uy, had lost
interest in pursuing the complaint he filed against Atty. Gonzales and requesting that the
case against Atty. Gonzales be dismissed. 9
The facts and evidence presented show that when respondent agreed to
handle the filing of the Verified Petition for the loss of TCT No. T-5165,
complainant had confided to respondent the fact of the loss and the
circumstances attendant thereto. When respondent filed the Letter-Complaint to
the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Tayug, Pangasinan, he violated Canon 21
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which expressly provides that "A
lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the
attorney-client relation is terminated." Respondent cannot argue that there was no
lawyer-client relationship between them when he filed the Letter-Complaint on 26
July 1999 considering that as early as 14 April 1999, or three (3) months after,
respondent had already terminated complainant's perceived lawyer-client
relationship between them. The duty to maintain inviolate the client's confidences
and secrets is not temporary but permanent. It is in effect perpetual for "it outlasts
the lawyer's employment" (Canon 37, Code of Professional Responsibility) which
means even after the relationship has been terminated, the duty to preserve the
client's confidences and secrets remains effective. Likewise Rule 21.02, Canon
21 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not, to
the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third
person, unless the client with the full knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto."TSEHc A
On June 21, 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
issued Resolution No. XV-2003-365, thus:
This is because:
Practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, as well as legal principles, practice or procedure and calls for legal
knowledge, training and experience. 13 While it is true that a lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, 14 complainant failed to prove any of the
circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the disbarment or suspension of
herein respondent.
Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule cannot apply to the
present case. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for "Estafa Through Falsification
of Public Documents" filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent
due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to
hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant.
Respondent's immediate objective was to secure the title of the property that complainant
had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was
only incidental to their personal transaction.
ASc HCD
Rule 21.01 — A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his
client except:
The alleged "secrets" of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-
complaint. Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by
respondent in his professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally
owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa
against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute
estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate
the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a misconduct that is
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any
lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary
interests.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XV-2003-365 dated June 21, 2003 of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the administrative case filed
against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales, docketed as A.C. No. 5280, is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.
1. Rollo, p. 7.
2. Rollo, p. 7.
4. Id., p. 9.
6. Id., p. 18.
7. Id., p. 20.
8. Id., p. 22.
9. Id., p. 23.
12. Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, 285 SCRA 93, 100-101 (1998).
13. J.K. Mercado and Sam Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. vs. de Vera, 371 SCRA 251, 259
(2001).
15. Hilado vs. David, No. L-961, 84 Phil. 569, 576 (1949).